About Me

In the name of Allah (God),
I have decided to dedicate sincere and honest endeavour in helping to establish the Truth by helping to defend the good name of the last Prophet (pbuh) of Allah as well as refuting many other lies and misconceptions that are being disseminated by the insincere, wicked, deceptive, intellectually and morally bankrupted individuals as well as the ignorant individuals who all share a faulty characteristic; a blatant disregard for the Truth.
I ask Allah to purify my intentions and save me from doing any good action for self-aggrandizement, as all actions are judged by intentions. May Allah Love me, and bless this work. My message to any non-Muslim reading this is thus:
Please give Islam a chance, research it for yourself and allow Muslims and Muslim sources to be your primary resources you refer to when studying Islam rather than basing your views on agenda-motivated Islamophobic sources.
O Allah, You are Al-Wadud (The Loving)...please O Allah love me and bless all those Muslims and non-Muslims who read this.
Ameen

Sunday, 31 October 2010

Some "Christians" have been busying themselves pursuing a wicked smear campaign against Muslims/Islam

We have recently witnessed a spate of outrageous sex-related hoaxes conjured by fundamentalist "Christians" in order to malign the reputation of Islam and Muslims. These hoaxes, fabricated/peddled by "Christian" missionaries include the Hamas mass child wedding, the (sexual) thighing of children and the sex with prepubescent girls’ hoax. (as well as other hoaxes)

Having already denounced these sick hoaxes we can concentrate on the Bible

Do I believe the Bible/Christianity allows Pedophilia?

No, I showcase this video in order to highlight the ease at which an agenda-driven individual can use the BIBLE to make "pedophile allegations" seem credible to those who want to believe such a claim

I do want to state; during Biblical times it was the norm for older men to marry younger girls; but as Geza Vermes indicates - the men would WAIT for the girls to reach maturity (puberty) before consummating the marriage (i.e. having sex with the female) [1]. This was certainly a norm for the bygone days. Of course, according to today’s Western norms such "Biblical" practices would be deemed as pedophilia BUT anybody with a spot of objectivity and context will never impute such charges on the people of the past.

The video (from the investigateislamdumy channel) begins with a clip from the Sceptics, they put forward an argument which could impute pedophilia on Numbers 31:18. Of course, I do not believe for one moment Moses or his men were having sex with prepubescent girls. You can imagine if Muslim sources contained something similar to Numbers 31:18 the debauched "Christian" missionaries we have been countering on this blog would certainly have utilised it in order to work their anti-Muslim agendas – they would have had a field day!

Numbers 31:17 -18 (NIV)

Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

Perhaps the killing of the boys, women (non-virgin) and the enslaving of the (virgin) girls will be discussed on this blog in the future. Sadly, many Christians are unaware of such passages in the Bible and thus rendering some of their argumentation and preaching inapplicable due to inconsistency.

Age of Consent

Different centuries and different geographical locations have exhibited differing ages of consent. During the time of Jesus, the age of consent was thought to be three months after the first period [1]. This biological event of puberty usually ranges between the ages of 8 to 13 (unless precocious or delayed puberty kicks in) [4]. An age of consent at the age of 8 years old would certainly be foreign to us modern-day Westerners, however in the West our age of consent was remarkably low a century or two ago as well (as highlighted in the video).

Mary and Joseph

It is estimated the age of Mary (at the time of her marriage to Joseph) was ranging between 12-14 [2]. Of course, Jesus gave tacit approval to this type of union, I would not be surprised if the age of Mary was lower than 12 either as during Mary's time the marriage would typically be conducted prior (before) puberty and the man would wait for that biological sign before consummating the marriage [1]. Joseph would have been of a mature age at the time of his wedding (he could have been ninety years old) [2].

A 12-14 year old girl marrying an old man who could well have been ninety is something foreign to our modern-Western norms. We must remember we do not judge these pious figures based on modern norms. For those who are interested in Jesus' opinion in this regard; Jesus would certainly have given approval (either tacit or outright) to this type of relationship. Do we see Jesus denouncing such practice? No.

Hypocrisy and Humiliation

Sadly, the fundamentalist "Christians" who troll the internet with their brand of malicious misinformation are being hypocritical and indeed are being shown up.

Firstly, as we have seen the case can be made by an agenda-driven individual of pedophilia being allowed in the Bible. How many Muslims are trolling the internet spreading these claims? Not many if any!

How many "Christians" do we see claiming Muhammad to be a pedophile and fabricating/peddling other crazed hoaxes about Islam/Muslims? A shed load, a ton, innumerable!

Food for thought; Muslims are called to holiness and righteousness. These "Christians" should ponder upon the decency and intellectual competence of MUSLIMS. Yes, those fellows you spend your lives traducing with fabrications and other propaganda hit-pieces are setting a better standard of scholarship, intellect, decency and respect.

Fundamentalist Christians do not Harass Jews (or do they?)

As Muslims we respect and LOVE the Prophets and certainly do not have any reason to believe the teachings of having sex with three year olds are traced back to the Prophets. There certainly is room for the “Christian” fundamentalist to utilize some of these Talmudic teachings in their cyber witch-hunts. For some reason I don’t see that; I don’t see these crazed “Christians” haranguing Jews on the internet. Instead, these “Christians” attack Muslims erroneously with fabrications and inapplicable argumentation – perhaps the anti-Muslim agenda yields more CASH donations for their shoddy “ministries”

Rabbi Joseph and Three Year Olds

Said Rabbi Joseph, "Come and take note: A girl three years and one day old is betrothed by intercourse. [3]

I do want to state, I am not encouraging ANYBODY to harass Jews with Talmudic teachings or other teachings. We are the Muslims and we are here to set a better example. Even, the most debauched “Christian” missionary would be impressed with this MUSLIM ideal.

Certainly the teaching of Rabbi Joseph CANNOT be traced back to any Prophet. Quite how he came to this conclusion is beyond me but we can dismiss it as erroneous.

Muslim Defends the Reputation of Moses

It appears there is a Jewish interpretation which suggests sex/rape took place:

“According to the Tannaïte Rabbis, Moses therefore had ordered the Israelites to kill all women older than three years and a day, because they were "suitable for having sexual relations."”

I just want to stand up for Moses. Firstly, if he did take part in the killing of these people I can assure you Moses did not sanction the sexual relations with three-year olds (prepubescent girls).

There is NO evidence of such a practice and the teaching of the Tannaite Rabbis can be dismissed as ridiculously fallacious speculation and outrage. We ALREADY know the Semitic standard was that of waiting for puberty before consummating a marriage [1]. Do Jews, to this day, have sex with three-year olds? Of course not. Their standard is puberty to THIS day – this speaks volumes in our dismissal of the above quote.

Again, why is it that a MUSLIM is standing up for the honour of a Prophet and standing up for intellectual honesty? In this there is a sign for the fundamentalist “Christians” we have been denouncing of late. They should stop wasting their time peddling/fabricating anti-Muslim hoaxes and start doing something productive with their lives

Defending Isaac: Was Rebecca THREE years old when she married Isaac?

This is what Genesis 25:20 says:

And Isaac was forty years old when he took Rebecca the daughter of Bethuel the Aramean of Padan Aram, the sister of Laban the Aramean, to himself for a wife.

However, Rashi’s commentary seems to suggest Rebecca was three years old at this time. This further throws doubt upon the preciseness of Jewish traditions (which in turn throws further suspicion on what the Tannaite Rabbis attributed to Moses, see above). Is the commentary claiming consummation took place whilst Rebecca was three years old? If so, this is an absurdity.

If the commentary is claiming (non-sexual) betrothal took place at this age then that is reasonable. However, it does appear the commentary is suggesting the former.

Rashi’s commentary:

forty years old: For when Abraham came from Mount Moriah, he was informed that Rebecca had been born. Isaac was then thirty-seven years old, for at that time Sarah died, and from the time that Isaac was born until the “Binding” [of Isaac], when Sarah died, were thirty-seven years, for she was ninety years old when Isaac was born, and one hundred and twenty-seven when she died, as it is stated (above 23:1): “The life of Sarah was [a hundred and twenty seven years.”] This makes Isaac thirty-seven years old, and at that time, Rebecca was born. He waited for her until she would be fit for marital relations-three years-and then married her.— [From Gen. Rabbah 57:1
(http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8220/showrashi/true)

“Christian” Double Standards

Quite where the fundamentalist “Christians” are is beyond me. Why are they not working this stuff assiduously? After all they do like propagating sexual sensationalism – at least they do like doing so when it is Muslim-related (despite all being stuff of fabrication and hoax!)

Why do these “Christians” Attack Muslims with Lies and Hoaxes?

The answer can be drawn from the words attributed to Jesus (Matthew 5:11-12). Essentially, these fundamentalist “Christians” attack Muslims because of what we believe concerning Jesus. Muslims believe Jesus is a Prophet of God, for some reason fundamentalist “Christians” do not like this Muslim belief. Muslims can draw comfort from the alleged words of Jesus whilst the “Christian” harassers can receive rebuke from such words:

"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
(Matthew 5:11-12 NIV)

Come to the Light
Would you like to worship the God Jesus worshipped (the God who created Jesus and all of us)? If yes, become a Muslim today:http://www.ediscoverislam.com/

[2] A year after his wife's death, as the priests announced through Judea that they wished to find in the tribe of Juda a respectable man to espouse Mary, then twelve to fourteen years of age. Joseph, who was at the time ninety years old, went up to Jerusalem among the candidates; a miracle manifested the choice God had made of Joseph, and two years later the Annunciation took place. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08504a.htm

[3] Talmudic teaching (Jewish):

And if a Levir has had intercourse with her, he has acquired her. And one can be liable on her account because of the law prohibiting intercourse with a married woman. And she imparts uncleanness to him who has intercourse with her when she is menstruating, to convey uncleanness to the lower as to the upper layer [of what lies beneath]. If she was married to a priest, she may eat food in the status of priestly rations. If one of those who are unfit for marriage with her had intercourse with her, he has rendered her unfit to marry into the priesthood. If any of those who are forbidden in the Torah to have intercourse with her had intercourse with her, he is put to death on her account, but she is free of responsibility [M.Nid. 5:4].

[4] Back in the 1960s, doctors considered 8 to 13 the normal age range for puberty to begin in girls http://tlc.howstuffworks.com/family/earlier-girls-puberty.htm

With regard to the first part, the fate of the children of the Muslims:

Ibn Katheer (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: With regard to the children of the believers, there is no dispute among the scholars. Al-Qaadi Abu Ya’laa ibn al-Farraa’ al-Hanbali narrated that Imaam Ahmad said: there is no dispute concerning the fact that they will be among the people of Paradise. This is what is well known among people (i.e., the majority of scholars) and this is what we are definitely sure about, in sha Allaah. (Tafseer al-Qur’aan al-‘Azeem, 3/33).

Imaam Ahmad (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: who has any doubts that the children of the Muslims will be in Paradise?!

He also said: there is no difference among them on this matter. (Haashiyat Ibn al-Qayyim ‘ala Sunan Abi Dawood, 7/83).

Imaam al-Nawawi said: the reliable Muslim scholars agreed that any Muslim child who dies will be among the people of Paradise, because he was not responsible (i.e., had not yet reached the age of account). (Sharh Muslim, 16/207).

Al-Qurtubi said: the view that they will be in Paradise is the view of the majority. And he said: some scholars denounced any dispute concerning them. (al-Tadhkirah, 2/328).

With regard to the second part, the fate of the children of the kuffaar:

The scholars differed concerning this matter, and there are several views:

That they will be in Paradise. Some of them said, they will be in al-A’raaf [a place between Paradise and Hell]. And the reason why it was said that they will be in Paradise is because this is the ultimate destiny of the people of al-A’raaf. This is the view of the majority of scholars, as reported from them by Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr in al-Tamheed, 18/96.

Their evidence (daleel):

The hadeeth of Samurah (may Allaah be pleased with him), that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) saw the children of the Muslims and the children of the Mushrikeen with Ibraaheem (peace be upon him). Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 6640.

Hasnaa’ bint Mu’aawiyyah from Bani Suraym said: my paternal uncle told me: I said, O Messenger of Allaah, who will be in Paradise? He said: Prophets will be in Paradise, martyrs will be in Paradise, infants will be in Paradise and baby girls who were buried alive will be in Paradise. Narrated by Imaam Ahmad, 5/409; classed as da’eef by al-Albaani in Da’eef al-Jaami’, 5997.

That they will be with their parents in Hell. Al-Qaadi Abu Ya’laa attributed this view to Ahmad! But Shaykh al-Islam (Ibn Taymiyah) pointed out that this was a grave error. See Haashiyat Ibn al-Qayyim ‘ala Sunan Abi Dawood, 7/87.

Their evidence (daleel):

Salamah ibn Qays al-Ashja’i said: my brother and I came to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and said that our mother had died during the Jaahiliyyah, and that she had honoured her guests and upheld the ties of kinship, but that she had buried alive a sister of ours during the Jaahiliyyah who had not reached the age of puberty. He said: the one who was buried and the one who buried her are in Hell, unless Islam reached the one who buried the child alive and she became Muslim.

The hadeeth was classed as hasan by Ibn Katheer in al-Tafseer, 3/33, and before him by Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr in al-Tamheed, 18/120.

There are other ahaadeeth, but they are da’eef (weak).

Not giving any opinion on this matter. This is the view of Hammaad ibn Zayd, Hammaad ibn Salamah, Ibn al-Mubaarak and Ishaaq ibn Raahawayh.

Their evidence (daleel):

According to Ibn ‘Abbaas, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was asked about the children of the mushrikeen, and he said, “Allaah knows best what they would have done.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 1383, and Muslim, 2660.

There is a similar hadeeth narrated by Abu Hurayrah. Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 1384, and Muslim, 2659.

Some scholars say that they (the children of the mushrikeen) will be the servants of the people of Paradise.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: there is no basis for this view. (Majmoo’ al-Fataawaa, 4/279)

I say: concerning this there was a hadeeth narrated by al-Tabaraani and al-Bazzaar, but it was classed as da’eef by the imaams – including al-Haafiz ibn Hajar in al-Fath, 3/246.

That they will be tested in the Hereafter, and whoever obeys Allaah will enter Paradise, and whoever disobeys Him will enter Hell. This is the view of the majority of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah, as transmitted by Abu’l-Hasan al-Ash’ari, and it is the opinion of al-Bayhaqi and many other researchers. It is also the opinion favoured by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah. He said that this is what is implied by the texts of Imaam Ahmad, and is the view regarded as most correct by al-Haafiz Ibn Katheer. He said: this view reconciles all the reports, and all the ahaadeeth quoted above support one another. Al-Tafseer, 3/31.

Their evidence:

Anas said: the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Four (kinds of people) will be brought forth on the Day of Resurrection: the infant, the insane, the one who died during the Fatrah (the period between two prophets) and the very old man. All of them will speak in their own defence, then the Lord, may He be blessed and exalted, will say to a neck of Hell, ‘Come forth!’ and He will say to them, ‘I used to send Messengers to My slaves from amongst themselves. Now I am the Messenger of Myself to you. Enter this (i.e., the Fire).’ Those who are decreed to be among the doomed will say, ‘O Lord, how could we enter it when we are trying to escape it?’ And those who are decreed to be among the blessed will rush to enter it. And Allaah will say: ‘You would have been more disobedient towards My Messengers.’ So those will enter Paradise and those will enter Hell.” Narrated by Abu Ya’laa, 4224. There are corroborating reports which were mentioned by Ibn Katheer in al-Tafseer, 3/29-31.

Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: this is the most reasonable of the opinions, which reconciles all the reports and brings all the ahaadeeth into harmony. On this basis, some of them will be in Paradise, as in the hadeeth of Samurah, and some of them will be in Hell, as in the hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah. The reply of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) indicates this, as he said: “Allaah knows best what they would have done, because He created them.” It is known that Allaah does not punish anyone on the basis of what He knows, unless what He knows actually comes to pass.

The phrase “Allaah knows best what they would have done” indicates that Allaah knows what they would have done if they had lived. The ones who obey Him at the time of the test are the ones who would have obeyed Him if they had lived in this world, and those ones who disobey Him at that time are the ones who would have disobeyed Him if they had lived in this world. This indicates that He knows about what does not happen and how it would have been if it had happened. And Allaah knows best. (Haashiyat Ibn al-Qayyim ‘ala Sunan Abi Dawood, 7/87).

The ahaadeeth quoted above stating that they will either be in Paradise or in Hell do not contradict what we believe is more likely to be correct. Ibn Katheer (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: the ahaadeeth about them being tested is more specific. Whoever Allaah knows will obey Him, He puts his soul in al-Barzakh with Ibraaheem and the children of the Muslims who died in a state of Fitrah, and whoever He knows will not obey Him, his case rests with Allaah, and on the Day of Resurrection he will be in Hell, as is indicated in the ahaadeeth about the test and as reported by al-Ash’ari from the scholars of Sunnah. Al-Tafseer, 3/33.

The phrase “Allaah knows best what they would have done” does not mean that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was not giving an opinion.

Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: The evidence used by this group needs further examination. The answer of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) does not mean that he did not want to give an opinion; rather, he was attributing the knowledge of what they would have done if they had lived to Allaah. This was the answer to the question of how they could be with their fathers when they had no deeds in their records – which is part of the hadeeth. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) attributed the knowledge of what they would have done to Allaah; he did not say, Allaah knows best where they will be. This evidence does not support the opinion of this group. And Allaah knows best.

Friday, 29 October 2010

Brother Abdullah is a young scholar on Islam and comparative religion from Australia .He has studied Biblical studies and Jewish Civilization from the University of Sydney

From Darkness to Light - Abdullah Kunde tells his story

Embedded from MuslimByChoice's YT page, his descrpition reads:

Is Jesus Christ God or just a prophet?Did He ever claim to be God?Why did I choose Islam?Why I'm no longer a ChristianBrother Abdullah is a young scholar on Islam and comparative religion from AustraliaHe has studied Biblical studies and Jewish Civilization from the University of SydneyHe is now studying Medicine at the University of New South walesWhile studying at the University of Sydney Abdullah was heavily involved in Islamic Awareness Activities including debates and discussions with various religious backgroundsHe also taught and facilitated a course about development of Hebrew and Christian Scriptures for an Islamic education center.

We have already seen Old Testament Biblical passages which militate against the idea of Original Sin. However, a commentator did bring up Psalm 51:5 as an Old Testament verse to support the idea of the Original Sin. Here is the ESV translation of the said verse:

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

As you can see for yourself, this verse is not teaching the Original Sin, it seems to be about the sinful act of adultery yielding a child; the Psalm is thought to be a projection upon the future child of an adulterous relationship.

However, the NIV translation does seem to teach a branch of the Original Sin (i.e. babies are with sin):

Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

So which translation is correct?

Firstly, if the NIV translation (the one teaching Original Sin) is correct then the Bible-believing Christians will have contradictions on their hands. The verses mentioned in the opening article on the topic of Original Sin (Ezekiel 8:4 and 20, 2 Kings 14:6) would be deemed as contradicting Psalm 51:5, thus further discrediting the Bible.

However, in my research of Psalm 51:5 I have found three more verses (from the OT) which seem to refute the idea of Original Sin. The first two go together(Jeremiah 3:25 and Genesis 8:21); they appear to indicate a human only becomes sinful from his/her youth, i.e. at the time of discernment between right and wrong (good and evil). In fact Jeremiah 3:25 indicates humans sin from their youth onwards, thus the idea of Original Sin upon babies seems to be in real question here.

This age of discernment between good and evil appears to be mentioned in Isaiah 7:15-16 as well.

See appendix one for these three Bible verses in full.

Going back to Psalm 51:5, which translation is correct?

The NIV translation seems to be in error and appears to be unfaithful as the NASB, ESV and KJV all disagree with the NIV translation. The three aforementioned translations all indicate the child was conceived in sin UNLIKE the NIV which suggests the child was sinful at the time of birth.

New American Standard Bible (NASB):

Behold, I was (A)brought forth in iniquity,And in sin my mother conceived me.

King James Version (KJV):

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me

English Standard Version (ESV):

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

So there is NO teaching of Original Sin in this verse! The verse is concerning the sin of adultery; it does not mean the child is born with sin. In fact the verse does not make mention of Adam's sin.

Commentary on Psalm 51:5 refutes the Original Sin

This verse has already been explained by T.W Brents and the explanation denounces the idea of Original Sin:

Whatever may be the meaning of this passage, it can not be the imputation of sin to the child. ‘In sin did my mother conceive me:’ that is, she acted wickedly when I was conceived. Were the wife to say, ‘In drunkenness my husband beat me,’or the child that ‘in anger my father whipped me,’ surely no one would attribute drunkenness to the wife or anger to the child; neither can they impute the sin of the mother to the child (1957, 133, 134).
(Sourced from: http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/276-original-sin-and-a-misapplied-passage)

So is the Original Sin mentioned in the Old Testament?

No, the idea of Original Sin seems to be shunned and denounced by the Old Testament authors. We have already realised that Jesus never taught the concept of Original Sin and moreover we see the Gospel accounts (Matthew 19:14 (also view Mark 10:14 and Luke 18:16) indicate Jesus considered children as innocent (thus refuting Original Sin).

As previously mentioned, the foreign concept of Original Sin first came into existence by a man named Paul. He seems to be contradicting the Old Testament as well as Jesus.

Is the Original Sin moral?

The moral dilemma continues for the Christian who believes in the Original Sin. Why are babies born with sin and thought to be hell-bound if unbaptized? St Augustine was a strong advocate for this idea of Original Sin:

In truth, all men who are sullied by the original sin were born of Adam and Eve [Augustine, vol 2, p 633].

Thus St Augustine believed babies were born with sin, is this just? Furthermore Augustine believed unbaptized babies went to hell:

Augustine believed that the only definitive destinations of souls are heaven and hell. He concluded that unbaptized infants go to hell as a consequence of original sin [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin]

The three new Bible verses which appear to militate against the idea of Original Sin:

Jeremiah 3:25 (English Standard Version)

25(A) Let us lie down in our shame, and let our dishonor cover us. For(B) we have sinned against the LORD our God, we and our fathers, from our youth even to this day, and we have not obeyed the voice of the LORD our God."

Genesis 8:21 (English Standard Version)

21And when the LORD smelled(A) the pleasing aroma, the LORD said in his heart, "I will never again(B) curse[a] the ground because of man, for(C) the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth.(D) Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done.

Isaiah 7:15-16 (English Standard Version)

15He shall eat(A) curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16(B) For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be(C) deserted

Wednesday, 27 October 2010

At this blog we have already unveiled a few sexual related hoaxes which are being peddled by rogue “Christian” missionaries on the internet; they include the “thighing girls” fabrication, the bestiality hoax and the outrageous necrophilia allegation. Well, we have another rogue “Christian” missionary (Jochen Katz) who is STILL peddling the prepubescent girls hoax – this chap is not exactly Mr Current Affairs as this hoax was denounced many moons ago by many people!

Jochen Katz, for those who are unaware is a “Christian” missionary colleague of the infamous Sam Shamoun – yes, that’s the bloke who made up his OWN Quranic Verse translation to claim Muslims “can have sex with animals”.

Thus it comes as no surprise that Jochen Katz is imputing ANOTHER fanciful sex-related claim on Islam. Katz, is not interested in convincing his audience of “Muslim sex with animals”; Katz is more interested in convincing his fanatical followers that “Muslims can have sex with prepubescent girls.

Jochen Katz is Regurgitating the Same Tired and Failed Arguments

I have denounced a couple of Jochen Katz’s colleagues in this regard in the past, yet Katz seems to be trying to slip under the radar with this outrageous claim. I guess his motto is, if at first you don’t succeed, try again!

Is Jochen Katz Wrong?

Of course Jochen Katz is wrong; I would not be surprised if he KNEW he was peddling misinformation; such is the extent of public refutation and denouncement of his colleagues in the same regard.

Can Muslims have sex with prepubescent girls?

No.

Islamic Law prohibits sex with prepubescent girls a relationship is only acceptable if the female has reached maturity [1]. According to Sharia consummation of a marriage can take place (only) AFTER maturity [1].

The classical scholar Hasan al Basri also taught one cannot do anything of an intimate (sexual) nature with a girl who has not reached puberty. See here for more information on this “sex with prepubescent girls claim” and a subsequent refutation:

These words, moreover, show that marriage should be performed at the age when a person has attained majority, for the age of marriage is spoken of as being the age of attaining majority (sourced from http://www.answering-christianity.com/karim/part_3_c.pdf)

OK, so we KNOW Jochen Katz is wrong but does Katz use any Reasoning?

Katz employs a form of warped “reasoning” on this one. He bypasses the FACT Islamic Law (Sharia) does NOT allow sex with prepubescent girls and proceeds to draw bizarre and unsupported conclusions from a Quranic Verse (65:4), here is a translation of the Verse:

And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the 'Iddah (prescribed period), if you have doubts (about their periods), is three months, and for those who have no courses [(i.e. they are still immature) their 'Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise, except in case of death]. And for those who are pregnant (whether they are divorced or their husbands are dead), their 'Iddah (prescribed period) is until they deliver (their burdens), and whosoever fears Allah and keeps his duty to Him, He will make his matter easy for him. (HilaliKhan translation of 65:4)

As you can see it is not instructing prepubescent sex – the claim of sex with prepubescent girls comes from the mind of Jochen Katz. To educate Katz and the readers further we will present an audio (by Brother Colin at the ozzycda YouTube page). This audio is more than a year old, it refutes Katz’s hoax. Somebody should have directed him to this audio before he put pen to paper – it would have saved him from looking so dated and inaccurate:

I will also put forward a link to a couple of articles which have ALREADY refuted Jochen Katz’s canard:

I will allow Sheikh Moustafa Zayed to explain (perhaps he will circumnavigate Jochen Katz’s shield of fanaticism and get through to him) and the others who cling onto this malicious polemic in attempts to demonise Prophet Muhammad, Islam and all Muslims):

The most important rule as to marriage of females as per the majority of Muslim scholars is that the female had reached puberty and that she can mentally carry the responsibility of marriage.She has to be physically and mentally able to fulfil the duties of marriage…why was the Prophet waiting to consummate the marriage for three years? The answer is simple; for Aisha to reach the acceptable combination of conditions for her to be accepted as a wife. [5]

Logic Argues Against Jochen Katz

Even the one who lacks knowledge in this regard can still realise Katz is speaking through a hole in his hat. IF Katz was correct and Muslims could have sex with prepubescent girls then we would have a history of these sexual cases which spans volumes and centuries, we would also have a very long list of scholars stating this act to be permitted; we don’t have anything of such nature. The fact that we don’t have this “history” shows Katz up for the hoaxer he is.

Bringing a Hadith and a Jesus Scholar to Educate the Merchant of Hoaxes named Jochen Katz

If Katz had done some serious study he would KNOW it is thought the Jews at the time of Jesus conducted marriages similar to their Arab brethren; that is to say that they betrothed the young girl whilst she was immature and then waited for her to attain maturity before consummating the marriage [2][3][4]

So, if this is case Jochen Katz’s “man-god” (Katz believe Jesus was both god and man at the same time) gave tacit approval to this phenomenon. Moreover in Islam once the girl has reached maturity she then decides whether to approve of the marriage, if she does then the marriage is consummated:

Allah's Apostle said, "It is essential to have the consent of a virgin (for the marriage). I said, "A virgin feels shy." The Prophet; said, "Her silence means her consent." Some people said, "If a man falls in love with an orphan slave girl or a virgin and she refuses (him) and then he makes a trick by bringing two false witnesses to testify that he has married her, and then she attains the age of puberty and agrees to marry him and the judge accepts the false witness and the husband knows that the witnesses were false ones, he may consummate his marriage." (Bukhari: Book 9: Volume 86: Hadith 101)

It is clear old Jochen Katz is looking silly; nobody of a rational disposition will view what he presented as credible – especially in the light of what has already been presented. However, I have some more egg to smear of Jochen Katz’s face – at this blog we like to be thorough and kicking a bloke whilst he is down is the norm.

Jochen Katz Makes a Song and Dance about Maududi’s Tafsir and is Deceptive to boot!

Katz quotes a snip from footnote 13 (Tafhim al-Qur'an by Maududi):

Here, one should bear in mind the fact that according to the explanations given in the Qur'an the question of the waiting period arises in respect of the women with whom marriage may have been consummated, for there is no waiting-period in case divorce is pronounced before the consummation of marriage. (Al-Ahzab: 49). Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for the girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl in marriage at this age but it is also permissible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Qur'an has held as permissible

Having Realised Katz is Misinformation Central we Realise he is Dishonest

Jochen Katz is deceptive in this regard as he omits the (crucial) preceding portion of the footnote. Before quoting the entire footnote and unveiling Katz’s deceptive ways we can discuss Maududi’s Tafsir. Firstly, if Maududi claimed sex with prepubescent girls is allowed (I don’t believe he did) then he would be rejected as ALL four schools of Jurisprudence prohibit the practice. In fact the Sunnah dictates to us that contracting a marriage with a prepubescent girl prior to her attaining puberty is permissible BUT to live with and consummate the marriage (prior to maturation) is unacceptable [2], [3], [4]

Jochen Katz, disingenuously, gives the impression Maududi did. In defence of Maududi it would be wise to do the honest and wise action; that is to quote the ENTIRE footnote, something Katz failed to do.

However, before doing so it would be wise to state Maududi would have been well aware of the Sunnah and the four schools of Fiqh (Jurisprudence), thus it is extremely unlikely he would have claimed the Verse taught having sex with prepubescent girls is permitted

A case of context and Katz taking advantage of Ambiguity

Here is the ENTIRE footnote

They may not have menstruated as yet either because of young age, or delayed menstrual discharge as it happens in the case of some women, or because of no discharge at all throughout life which, though rare, may also be the case. In any case, the waiting-period of such a woman is the same as of the woman, who has stopped menstruation, that is three months from the time divorce was pronounced. Here, one should bear in mind the fact that according to the explanations given in the Qur'an the question of the waiting period arises in respect of the women with whom marriage may have been consummated, for there is no waiting-period in case divorce is pronounced before the consummation of marriage. (Al-Ahzab: 49). Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for the girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl in marriage at this age but it is also permissible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Qur'an has held as permissible. The girl who is divorced in the state when she has not yet menstruated and then she starts having the menses during the waiting-period, will reckon her waiting-period from the same menstruation and her waiting-period will be reckoned just like the woman who menstruates regularly.

Do you notice the first paragraphed (conveniently omitted by Katz)? Maududi gives a number of reasons why the female may not have menstruated. So Katz, there is a context and ambiguity to the snippet you showcased.

Sadly, Katz takes advantage of the ambiguity and his partial quoting in order to suggest Maududi is speaking about sex with prepubescent girls. It is not entirely clear who Maududi was referring to, Katz does not care. One would imagine, in the light of Islamic Jurisprudence, it refers to the females who have not menstruated for OTHER reasons. Katz had access to the COMPLETE footnote yet chose not to quote it; he withheld it from his reader’s attention in order to misdirect them into his thought path.

Serious Truth Seeker?

It gets worse as Jochen Katz, if he was a serious truth seeker would have immediately ran to Maududi’s commentary of Surah 4 in order to ascertain his position on orphan maturity (see footnote 10 of his Tafsir):

Two conditions of puberty and capability have been laid down for the return of their property to the orphans. As to the application of the first condition, there is consensus among the scholars of law, but in regard to the second condition there is some difference of opinion. Imam Abu Hanifah is of the opinion that if the orphan lacks capability when he reaches the age of puberty, his guardian may wait for a maximum period of seven years, and then he must return this property to him whether he shows signs of capability or not. But Imam Abu Yusuf, Imam Muhammad and Imam Shaf'i are of the opinion that capability is a pre-requisite for .the return of his property to the orphan. Probably these latter scholars were inclined to the opinion that the case of such a person should be referred to a Muslim judge, who would himself arrange for the management of the property of the one who has not acquired capability of management.

Maududi was accepting of the fact that PUBERTY was a condition for orphans to be deemed responsible for their property, thus by the way of implication this leads us to believe Maududi would have been in line with ALL schools of Jurisprudence in saying prepubescent sex is NOT allowed.

Again, in the interest of kicking a carcass we shall look at Katz’s conclusion in some detail.

Jochen Katz’s fanciful conclusion dissected

Katz states:

Syed Abul A'ala Maududi (1903 - 1979) was a highly respected scholar of Islam. He was well aware of the criticism of child-marriages that is levelled also at Islam but he clearly says Muslims cannot reject and forbid something that the Qur'an has permitted.

The parents’ contracting a marriage of their child to a man is allowed in Sharia but sex prior to maturation is not allowed. Katz displays his ignorance and/or inconsistency as Geza Vermes taught Jews at the time of Jesus undertook a similar practice [6]. In fact it is thought Mary and Joseph had a similar union, thus Jesus gave tacit approval to such a practice. I get the feeling Katz was more interested in bashing Muslims rather than “edifying” the church. Katz gives us an insight into his debauched and troublesome thought-pattern:

In other words, the Qur'an endorses explicitly that (usually much older) Muslim men can marry eight or nine or ten year old girls, have sex with them, then divorce them and – after a waiting period of three months – other (older) Men men can marry them, and have sex with them. That would be a traumatic experience for any girl. (And, potentially, this could be repeated several times without violating Islamic law.)

Crikey! Firstly, Muslims are not allowed to have sex with prepubescent girls and the girls who have had marriages contracted to an older man do not reside with the potential husband until she has matured and then SHE gets to choose whether she wants to go ahead with the marriage or not (see the Hadith cited earlier). Thus Katz’s conclusion is far fetched and rather disturbing – he was playing to his fanatical audience in an effort to shock. He certainly has shocked us with his deceptive, inconsistent and unlearned ways. Here Katz goes on the offensive against a straw man which he wrongly perceives to be Sharia:

Certainly, this alone should be a sufficient reason to reject Sharia as the law for any country, to object strongly against the introduction of Sharia law in not traditionally Muslim countries, and for enlightened Muslims to campaign for its restriction or replacement in countries where Sharia is currently the basis of national law.

Katz has argued against sex with prepubescent girls and wrongly imputed an instruction of such a practice on Sharia. The irony is twofold; Katz is against sex with prepubescent girls, so too is the ACTUAL Sharia (not the straw man he ignorantly presents). The second bout of irony comes into play as it is thought Jesus (pbuh) gave tacit approval to such unions, it is even thought the mother of Jochen Katz’s “god-man” (he believes Prophet Jesus was god incarnate) was involved in such a union.

Irony is best served with a slice of humble pie. Jochen have a rethink. By the way; Sharia means “law” thus it is a redundancy for you to coin the term “Sharia law”. The irony continues:

However, manipulating the text to cover up what it really says is not acceptable.

Katz thinks Muslims have been “manipulating” the texts. The only ones manipulating texts are Jochen Katz and his buddies. Katz came forward with a preconceived notion that “Muslims are allowed to have sex with prepubescent girls) and he adopted desperate means in order to make this tired and refuted argument resonate with his fanatical support. Sad. It gets sadder as Katz’s colleague has made up his OWN Quranic translations in order to support his fallacious and crazed arguments in the past. Does Katz want to talk about manipulating texts with a straight face?

Genuine progress can only be made on the basis of knowledge and truth and dealing with the facts.

Oh, the irony continues to flow! Like I say, Jochen Katz’s material is old hat and he is sounding like a stuck record; I guess even his small fanatical following are tiring of his regurgitated and tired arguments.

Message to serious Christians

People like Katz should not receive any of your money; it is clear they are fellows of hate and have no regard for honesty; all the while they give the church a bad name.

Jesus would never support Katz and those of his ilk. Do not give him or his site any cash!

Message to Jochen Katz (and any Christian who is tired of “missionary” hoaxes and wants the Truth)

Jochen, this is not the way to behave. You are not behaving in a Christ-like manner. Muslims are the brothers and sisters of Jesus. Would you like to become a brother of Jesus? If yes please become a Muslim today; at the moment you are wasting your life immersed in anti-Muslim bigotry. Do not reject your Creator (the Creator of Jesus, Muhammad and all of us):http://www.ediscoverislam.com/

[2] Explanation of Muslim by Imam Nawawi, Book of Marriage, Hadeeth 75, Vol 9, p.207 Aisha said: ‘Allah’s Messenger (pbuh) engaged me when I was six years old, and consummated the marriage when I was a girl of nine years old.’... And Malik and Shafii and Abu Hanifa said: ‘The limit for that (consummation) is her (the female’s) capability for (sexual) intercourse.’ Dawudi said: ‘And Aisha then had physically matured well indeed’.” (see muhaddith.org)

Tuesday, 26 October 2010

The concept of Original Sin is indeed amongst one of the most problematic in Christian theology. Not only is it NOT found in the Old Testament but Jesus never taught this foreign belief either. The suspicious origin of this belief is further highlighted by parts of the Bible which seem to be contradicting the Original Sin concept – amazing!

This post will consist of two parts; firstly a short video by BeholderGuard highlighting the passages in the Bible which seem to counter the concept of Original Sin, and secondly the Bible verses in question will be quoted and commentary added as well as further discussion being put forward in order to help the reader to realise the concept of Original Sin is not one taught by God, Jesus or any Old Testament Prophet (it is taught by a man who never met Jesus, named Paul)

BeholderGuard’s video presentation on the belief in Original Sin

Why is the Original Sin not in Genesis?

You would expect an author who believes in the Original Sin to make mention of it when referring to the results of Adam’s sin; in the Bible this would be in Genesis (Genesis chapter 3). However, this belief of Original sin is not only absent in Genesis but the entire Old Testament fails to mention it, thus the Prophets never taught this foreign belief (the same applies to Prophet Jesus)

Is the Original Sin concept Biblical?

It is neither in the Old Testament nor in the Gospel accounts. Paul introduces this concept in Romans:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned Romans 5:12 (also see 1 Cor. 15:22 and Rom. 5:17-19).

So is it Biblical? It depends on your definition of "Biblical". If you allow the teachings of Paul to be included in the Bible then the concept of Original Sin is indeed Biblical (albeit somewhat contradictory to earlier portions of the Bible). If you disregard Paul’s teachings then the concept of Original Sin is unbiblical. It is a very taxing conundrum the Christian is facing. The Old Testament certainly offers Paul no help but piles on the misery by militating against the belief in question

The Old Testament Contradicts Paul’s concept of Original Sin

As BeholderGuard mentions; Ezekiel 18 is key in this regard.

For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son--both alike belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die Ezekiel 18:4

Also:

The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him. Ezekiel 18:20

Ezekiel 18 clearly shows each individual is responsible for their own sin. Surely the foreign belief of Original Sin is confusing in the light of Ezekiel 18.

2 Kings refutes the idea sin is passed onto posterity

Yet he did not put the sons of the assassins to death, in accordance with what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses where the LORD commanded: "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sins." 2 Kings 14:6

Clearly dying for your own sins indicates you are not responsible or lumbered with your forefather’s sin. Again, the question is asked; if God really wanted us to believe in Original Sin then why have this verse and Ezekiel 18 in the Bible?

A departure from the Bible: Original Sin is problematic as it seems unfair

Why should an innocent baby be born with Original Sin? Christians do believe all are unclean (including babies), Saint Augustine:

No one is clean, not even if his life be only for a day (A dictionary from Biblical tradition in English literature, p.577)

Jesus Refutes Paul’s idea of Original Sin?

However, things get even more confusing as Paul’s belief is shot down by Jesus himself; Jesus intimates children are innocent:

Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." Matthew 19:14 (also view Mark 10:14 and Luke 18:16)

Conclusion

The Original Sin is amongst the most problematic beliefs a Christian adopts – it is clearly a product from Paul’s devices. The Christian is left with the dilemma of why did Jesus never teach such a doctrine and why does he appear to contradict Paul.

A video for Christians: Muslim Preaches the Truth of Islam
(please listen and take what is beneficial from this video)

Addendum

Does Psalm 51:5 teach the Original Sin?

No.
We have already seen Old Testament Biblical passages which militate against the idea of Original Sin. However, a commentator did bring up Psalm 51:5 as an Old Testament verse to support the idea of the Original Sin. Here is the ESV translation of the said verse:

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

As you can see for yourself, this verse is not teaching the Original Sin, it seems to be about the sinful act of adultery yielding a child; the Psalm is thought to be a projection upon the future child of an adulterous relationship.

However, the NIV translation does seem to teach a branch of the Original Sin (i.e. babies are with sin):

Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

So which translation is correct?

Firstly, if the NIV translation (the one teaching Original Sin) is correct then the Bible-believing Christians will have contradictions on their hands. The verses mentioned in the opening article on the topic of Original Sin (Ezekiel 8:4 and 20, 2 Kings 14:6) would be deemed as contradicting Psalm 51:5, thus further discrediting the Bible.

However, in my research of Psalm 51:5 I have found three more verses (from the OT) which seem to refute the idea of Original Sin. The first two go together(Jeremiah 3:25 and Genesis 8:21); they appear to indicate a human only becomes sinful from his/her youth, i.e. at the time of discernment between right and wrong (good and evil). In fact Jeremiah 3:25 indicates humans sin from their youth onwards, thus the idea of Original Sin upon babies seems to be in real question here.

This age of discernment between good and evil appears to be mentioned in Isaiah 7:15-16 as well.

See appendix one for these three Bible verses in full.

Going back to Psalm 51:5, which translation is correct?

The NIV translation seems to be in error and appears to be unfaithful as the NASB, ESV and KJV all disagree with the NIV translation. The three aforementioned translations all indicate the child was conceived in sin UNLIKE the NIV which suggests the child was sinful at the time of birth.

New American Standard Bible (NASB):

Behold, I was (A)brought forth in iniquity,And in sin my mother conceived me.

King James Version (KJV):

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me

English Standard Version (ESV):

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

So there is NO teaching of Original Sin in this verse! The verse is concerning the sin of adultery; it does not mean the child is born with sin. In fact the verse does not make mention of Adam's sin.

Commentary on Psalm 51:5 refutes the Original Sin

This verse has already been explained by T.W Brents and the explanation denounces the idea of Original Sin:

Whatever may be the meaning of this passage, it can not be the imputation of sin to the child. ‘In sin did my mother conceive me:’ that is, she acted wickedly when I was conceived. Were the wife to say, ‘In drunkenness my husband beat me,’or the child that ‘in anger my father whipped me,’ surely no one would attribute drunkenness to the wife or anger to the child; neither can they impute the sin of the mother to the child (1957, 133, 134).
(Sourced from: http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/276-original-sin-and-a-misapplied-passage)

So is the Original Sin mentioned in the Old Testament?

No, the idea of Original Sin seems to be shunned and denounced by the Old Testament authors. We have already realised that Jesus never taught the concept of Original Sin and moreover we see the Gospel accounts (Matthew 19:14 (also view Mark 10:14 and Luke 18:16) indicate Jesus considered children as innocent (thus refuting Original Sin).

As previously mentioned, the foreign concept of Original Sin first came into existence by a man named Paul. He seems to be contradicting the Old Testament as well as Jesus.

Is the Original Sin moral?

The moral dilemma continues for the Christian who believes in the Original Sin. Why are babies born with sin and thought to be hell-bound if unbaptized? St Augustine was a strong advocate for this idea of Original Sin:

In truth, all men who are sullied by the original sin were born of Adam and Eve [Augustine, vol 2, p 633].

Thus St Augustine believed babies were born with sin, is this just? Furthermore Augustine believed unbaptized babies went to hell:

Augustine believed that the only definitive destinations of souls are heaven and hell. He concluded that unbaptized infants go to hell as a consequence of original sin [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin]

The three new Bible verses which appear to militate against the idea of Original Sin:

Jeremiah 3:25 (English Standard Version)

25(A) Let us lie down in our shame, and let our dishonor cover us. For(B) we have sinned against the LORD our God, we and our fathers, from our youth even to this day, and we have not obeyed the voice of the LORD our God."

Genesis 8:21 (English Standard Version)

21And when the LORD smelled(A) the pleasing aroma, the LORD said in his heart, "I will never again(B) curse[a] the ground because of man, for(C) the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth.(D) Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done.

Isaiah 7:15-16 (English Standard Version)

15He shall eat(A) curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16(B) For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be(C) deserted

Saturday, 23 October 2010

Some Islamophobes try to portray Muslims as Nazis; this is far from the case. In fact there are a number of heart-warming stories of Muslims coming to the aid of Jews during Nazi occupations. Sadly, these stories are buried under right-wing (anti-Muslim) propaganda.

Recently I received a link to a CNN report of Albanian Muslims supporting the Jews against the Nazis; I was unaware of such Muslim heroism in Albania, I was aware of Muslims in North Africa coming to the aid of Jews during the second World War – hence I did some digging around and came across Robert Slatoff’s work. He describes the story of a mayor in Tunisia giving refuge to sixty (60) Jewish escapees (from slave labour camps) and thus saving them from Nazi design. Saltoff also tells the story of Khaled Abdul-Wahhaab, who saved a Jewish girl from Nazi rape.

New exhibition tells of how Albanian Muslims risked their lives to save Jewish people – the rabbi states the Albanian Muslims did this out of religious obligation – food for thought for the Islamophobes who want to demonise Muslims

With rising anti-Muslim sentiment across the country, an untold story is raising greater awareness about the Muslim faith and the teachings of the Quran. That awareness comes from an unlikely source: a small Jewish congregation in Creve Coeur.

Temple Emanuel is premiering a groundbreaking exhibit of photos that reveals Albanian Muslims who saved 2,000 Jews during World War II. It's a story you've likely never heard. It is a story told through the faces of Albanian Muslims who risked their own lives to live by a code of faith and honor called Besa.

A clip of Robert Saltoff telling the story of Muslim heroes helping Jews during Nazi occupation

Author and Middle East policy expert Robert Satloff duscusses several stories of assistance North African Arabs offered to Jews during the Holocaust.

Robert Satloff talks about "Among the Righteous."

Satloff revisits the Holocaust to document the role that Arabs played in saving Jews, as a way of helping to bridge the divide among Arabs and Jews. Satloff, director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, calls his book "part history, part travelogue, part memoir" - Politics & Prose

Never heard of him? Me too, till I saw him drop a few clangers on Samar Gorial’s show on ABNSat . This “Christian” missionary worked himself into a frenzy of hatred; a frenzy which apparently culminated into Usama Dakdok spouting a foul word*. Yes, we bring you ANOTHER scandal from an ABN show. Why do some fundamentalist Christians keep us so busy with their debauched and money-hungry ways?

Who is Usama Dakdok?

He is from Egyptian stock and functions out of “thestraightway” ministry. His claim to fame is his “translation” of the Quran - which he is selling on his site for a whopping £24.95 dollars. For those in the know concerning classical Arabic; Usama Dakdok is far from qualified to translate such a text. I guess his lack of expertise and study has not stopped him from entering such an enterprise; I wonder if it as financially lucrative as he first imagined.

If you have bought his translation, which he styles as the only “true” translation then you have well and truly been duped. Dakdok does not fit ANY of Von Denffer’s educational requirements for translating the Quran in English.

The Synopsis of Usama Dakdok’s address to Shadeed Lewis on ABN’s “Jihad Exposed”

I know the show seems to have a bizarre title but let’s leave that for now and concentrate on the foul mouth of Usama Dakdok. On the show he is confronted by a caller (MDI’s Shadeed Lewis) and Dakdok just goes off the handle.

Was Usama Dakdok possessed?

Really? Have a look at the footage yourself. He starts calling all Muslims deceivers, loses his composure and is generally ranting and raving whilst insulting Islam and Muslims.

Usama Dakdok’s bigotry, insults and bad language*

Dakdok suggests, in his shaky English, all Muslims following the Quran are Jihadists and ALL Muslims are demons, he calls Allah (God) and the Prophet deceivers.

In the end it appears as though Dakdok called Lewis an “a**” whilst strangling his expression (LATER CLARIFIED AS "ASK" BY DAKDOK, SEE BELOW). The other guest (Anjem Choudry) on the show accuses Usama Dakdok of “barking like a dog”; such was Dakdok’s crazed manner!

The big evangelical con

Does Usama Dakdok really want to be taken seriously as a translator? Nobody in the academic community considers him to be credible and those in the lay community have realised the man seems to have some real issues which point him out to be the charlatan the academic community consider him to be.

*Usama Dakdok contacted me, on the bad language issue he said:"You have accused me of speaking foul language and I assure you that I never have or never will use any foul language. If you listen carefully to the video you posted you will hear that the word I said was "ask" not "a**" as you claimed."

NOTE: I believe Usama Dakdok's explanation as I received a comment from an individual claiming Dakdok said "let's ask" and not "this ask", his accent is pretty heavy at times. Nevertheless, he did not use bad language. Thus we can disregard that particular critique.

I do notice he refrained from commenting on the rest of the outburst; he called all Muslims "demons" and went on a general insult spree!

My thanking the commenter:
Ahh yes...it makes sense now. If the "this" is "lets" then it makes sense. I have listened to it a few times to check for your explanation and it seems to hold water. For that reason I will private the video; and reupload an edited one.
I really appreciate your fairness. May Allah reward you with more good
Peace

Sunday, 17 October 2010

Absurd: Kamal Saleem’s 17 million Iranians converted to Christianity last year

Kamal Saleem has the glass of scrutiny firmly fixed upon him, he knows this. Despite knowing this he climbs aboard Samar Gorial's English show on ABN (Aramaic Broadcasting Network) and he blunders spectacularly by presenting outrageous Christian propaganda that the most gullible fundamentalist will baulk at.

The alleged former terrorist, Kamal Saleem, whilst asking for support (money) from his Christian audience threw in a few stun grenades (pun intended) and certainly stunned me into action; I have no idea if anybody was stunned to empty their bank accounts to ABNSat through Saleem’s Christian propaganda.

What Propaganda?

Kamal Saleem claimed, with a straight face, that 17 million Iranians converted to Christianity last year! Somebody needs to tell him Press TV, in January 2010 (this year), stated the figure of Christians in Iran is between 100,000 and 300,000 – that is less than half a million. Clearly our friend Kamal was presenting misinformation. Where he got this bout of propaganda from is beyond me. Care to explain, Kamal?

Even Christians disagree with Kamal Saleem’s unsupported claims

Worthy Christian News, in June of this year (2010) estimated the Christian population to be at least 100, 000 [1]. The figure is not even half a million. Also Wikipedia have it down as three hundred thousand; again, not even half a million [3].

Kamal Saleem presents another “difficult to believe” claim

He claims the number of Muslims converted to Christianity last year is a staggering 60 million! This is a bin load of rubbish too. It is notoriously difficult to gain an accurate estimation when it comes to conversions but the figure that generally gets banded about is that of about 2.5 million (two and a half million) conversions to Christianity each year from ALL faiths, globally [2]. Clearly, Kamal Saleem’s figure is implausible and hugely unsupported.

Did Kamal Saleem REALLY make these far fetched claims?

Yes, he did blow us away with these claims (terrorism pun intended). I have the video evidence, have a look for yourself

It appears Kamal Saleem is being presented as the “new Ergun Caner”. Last night I came across a YouTube video labelling him a fake “Ex Muslim”; the video by 1MoreMuslim took us through some of Kamal Saleem’s blunders.

For those who are unaware, Ergun Caner was claiming to be an “ex-Muslim” yet he made glaring errors in his pronouncements on Islam and has recently been removed from his post at Liberty University.

I noticed Kamal Saleem has TWO conversion stories?

Maybe Kamal Saleem converted to Christianity TWICE? Or, more realistically, our friend Kamal has been caught telling tales. They always say; if you are going to lie, make sure you have a good memory. It will be interesting to see if Kamal Saleem comes through the current scrutiny unscathed (terrorist pun intended) or as a fraud

The last thing the Church wants right now is another charlatan being excommunicated

Will Kamal Saleem stand up to close scrutiny?

Here is 1MoreMuslim’s first video investigating Kamal Saleem. Kamal really does not look or sound like a former terrorist. I would really like him to answer for the discrepancies is this video (he even claims to be a hafiz by reading the Quran three times):

[3]Number of Christians in Iran http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Iran

Appendix
A snip from Wikipedia with regards to the difficulty of putting figures on conversions:

Statistics for rates of conversion are the most difficult to gather and the least reliable: they are often distorted by social taboos such as the ban on apostasy in Islam, sometimes amplified by governments and policies at social institutions like universities[3][4] or the reporting of commitments where the individual does not persist. This means that a lot of the data on growth of religions is derived from birth and immigration rates.

There are a large number of people who self-identify themselves as associated to a specific religion, but who are not religiously active. If, for example, asked to choose between Christianity and other religions they would say they were Christians; if asked to choose between Christianity, other religions and "Not religious", they would say "Not religious". This may make categorization difficult.

Thursday, 14 October 2010

Recently we unearthed Walid Shoebat’s “mark of the beast” hoax and now we have just discovered a further scandal in the Shoebat household. Allow me to introduce Walid Shoebat’s son, Theodore Shoebat (Ted Shoebat), with the potty-mouth-scandal. Having just turned my glass of scrutiny towards Walid Shoebat, I had NO idea Ted Shoebat even existed. Here is Ted Shoebat’s shocking language on a Christian satellite station; the Christian host (ABNSat’s Samar Gorial) is left gob-smacked:

Of course, we already know Ted is the son of his infamous father but our readers may not be aux fait with Ted Shoebat’s aspiration of emulating and even out-doing his father:

"Dad you think you are a marked man, that will be nothing compared to me.”

Ted is clearly looking for a whole load of condemnation and limelight; his language has certainly found him a spot of controversy and condemnation. It has also led us to further investigate Shoebat Jnr.

A Book at the Age of 16?

Ted Shoebat seems to have penned a book at the age of 16. Who decide to publish it? Walid Shoebat’s pals. Who decided to edit it? Nobody, the grammatical and spelling errors in the blurb serve as sufficient evidence Ted Shoebat’s writing skills are hardly authorship material. Whatever happened to the days when people would undertake serious study before penning a book – like father like son? Walid Shoebat’s misguided and ignorant “mark of the beast” presentation seems to have set a shoddy standard many missionaries are following.

Ted’s Book is In Satan’s Footsteps (published by Top Executive Media) - Theodore is in Walid’s Footsteps

It appears Theodore Shoebat is espousing wacky and paranoid conspiracy theories, I guess Walid Shoebat must have taught him the art of selling a book to the gullible fundamentalist Christian brigade is to inject some sensational conspiracy theories.

“Apparently the book advances the thesis that Islam, Darwinism and Mormonism are part of a grand conspiracy against Christianity” [1]

A word of advice to Theodore; don’t follow the misleading and shoddy ways of your father, Walid Shoebat. In short, don’t follow the footsteps of your father.

Walid Shoebat is Making Money with Theodore?

“All are invited to dine with Walid and his son, Theodore Shoebat, to hear more of Walid’s message concerning the Islamic agenda for Christians and the United States of America.And what actually is a “prophesy dinner”?… Admission is $35.00 per person including a dinner of carved roast beef plus dessert.” [1]

$35 dollars a pop? Hmmm, I think I will give events of this nature a miss.